Owning Pets Is Cruel Debate

[Sweets America]

Lote,I think you have not understood anything to what Fifth was trying to say.

About morality not applying to animals, you say 'I apply my morality to animals too because I have compassion for them too, not only for humans.' Then you say 'animals are not on the same level as us', but that contradicts what you have just said.
Also, when Fifth says that our morality does not apply to animals, she doesn't say that she is more compassionate towards humans, she only says that she cannot interpret animal's behaviors and treat them according to her own human morality since they might not have the same. So your answer was not relevant.

What makes me cringe is that you say her morality is selfish. This is when I thought you had totally misunderstood her. Her morality is everything but selfish since she will impede herself from having pets because she wants them to be free. Comprendo? Those who are selfish are the ones who, just like me, take animals with them because they love them too much.
You are twisting her arguments in your own way.

Also, I will add once again that the fact that scientists, with their human methods, have not proven the presence of morality in animals IS NO PROOF to say that animals do not have morality. You should really detach yourself from science instead of believing in it as if it were the only truth. Maybe it is, maybe not.

Fifth is just trying to detach herself from her human condition and see beyond. When she does that, she realizes that to her, owning a pet is not fair to the pet in question. I understand her view, I find it fair, even if I will keep owning dogs because I just cannot live without them. I put my needs first.

[TheFifthElement]

Lote, I am not confused.

And I said if that was the case then we can exterminate all animals.

Yes, we can. Whether we should or not is where morality comes in. Morality is both individual and social. We can choose our individual morality to an extent but even our individual morality must bow to social morality - i.e. law.

It is you who are saying that human morality should only apply to humans only.

Yes, humans and human behaviour including human behaviour towards other species, and the planet as a whole.

You are saying your morality should only apply to humans. That is NOT my morality. My morality extends to all the things that I have around me. My compassion for example is not for my humans alone but for everything that is around me.

Yes, and my compassion extends to humans, and my human behaviour towards other species, and the planet as a whole.

Your morality is Selfish.

I could say your morality is arrogant, but this does nothing to aid the debate.

You say these things:

1. Human Morality should only apply to humans - I am telling you that would be a nonsense.

Again Lote, this is because you are missing a step. I believe that human morality should apply to humans and human behaviour towards others this includes human behaviour towards animals and the planet. Human behaviour is the only thing within our control, and the only thing we should seek to regulate. Anything else is interference.

[Virgil]

Nice try Virgil, but you have not convinced me

Touche.

[kiz_paws]

Fifth I have been reading this thread and want to say what a great question and what interesting points have been made. I have to collect my thoughts to think deeper to the original question posed, because as a dog-owner, I think in terms of MY dog -- but there is a greater scenerio out there -- all the hamster owners, the baby pig owners (yes, there are many that keep these adorable beasts as pets), and the list goes on.

p.s. Virgil's photos of Brandi are sooooo endearing!

[Lote-Tree]

Again Lote, this is because you are missing a step. I believe that human morality should apply to humans and human behaviour towards others this includes human behaviour towards animals and the planet.
Human behaviour is the only thing within our control, and the only thing we should seek to regulate. Anything else is interference.

I still don't understand you.

Human morality should only apply to humans and human behaviour towards others? What is this?

And what is thing called interfrence?

I would say this is nonsense because all animals and humans INTERACT EACH OTHER. Our existence is one of interactions.

We are not separated into different spheres where we try to seal ourselves so that our Existence does not affect others.

[Sweets America]

I still don't understand you.

Human morality should only apply to humans and human behaviour towards others? What is this?

And what is thing called interfrence?

I would say this is nonsense because all animals and humans INTERACT EACH OTHER. Our existence is one of interactions.

We are not separated into different spheres where we try to seal ourselves so that our Existence does not affect others.

What she means by 'interference' is that it would be arrogant and unfair for human beings to think that they can decide what to do with lives of animals.

[Lote-Tree]

'I apply my morality to animals too because I have compassion for them too, not only for humans.' Then you say 'animals are not on the same level as us', but that contradicts what you have just said.

How so? Animals are NOT on our level of awareness are they?

she only says that she cannot interpret animal's behaviors and treat them according to her own human morality since they might not have the same.

I don't understand this. What does that mean? We have compassion so we don't apply this because you can't interpret animals behaviour of compassion?

What makes me cringe is that you say her morality is selfish.

I understood that her morality only applies to humans. And the human compassion does not extend to the animal world because we don't understand their moral behaviour?

Her morality is everything but selfish since she will impede herself from having pets because she wants them to be free.

No pet owner ever thinks of their pet as a Slave. Pet's are not in bondage like a human slave is. Animals seek contact so do humans. And from this contacts relationship develop. All animals interact with each other. We do not live in an isloated sphere from the rest of the animal world. We interact and have been interacting from the dawn of life. To deny that is self-imposed repression. And I think that is not healthy.

Those who are selfish are the ones who, just like me, take animals with them because they love them too much.

Love is anything but selfish.

You should really detach yourself from science instead of believing in it as if it were the only truth.

No way! Science is the ONLY TRUTH we can agree on because it is based on VERFIABLE evidence.

Science has banished human superstitions to the pages of myths where they belong. It has achieved spectacular results in all branches of human knowledge. It has take us to the moon and back!

Do not be so naieve to give it up

Fifth is just trying to detach herself from her human condition and see beyond.

If seeing "Beyond" is not based on Evidence then it does not amount to much.

When she does that, she realizes that to her, owning a pet is not fair to the pet in question.

But animals seek contact. Human seek contact. What so unfairness in this?

[Lote-Tree]

What she means by 'interference' is that it would be arrogant and unfair for human beings to think that they can decide what to do with lives of animals.

When animals interfere with humans? Is that an Arrogance on Animals to intefere with humans?

Sweetie. All animals interact with each other. There is no getting away from it.

If you want seal yourself away from this interactions then go ahead...

For survival of both animals and humans human "arrogance" as you say it is very much is justified or else it would be the death of both. And that would be quite illogical thing to let happen arrogance or no arrogance

[Sweets America]

Lote, you make my head spin.

How so? Animals are NOT on our level of awareness are they?

What makes you think that? What you say sounds like our level of awareness is higher than theirs. First, I would like you to define what you call a 'level of awareness'. Then, I would like you to realize that my dog and I, for instance, just have different ways of seeing the world, with different abilities and different ways of interacting with it (I personally don't sniff people when I meet them ).
My point is to say that you cannot really compare their level of awareness to ours because you cannot put yourself at the place of a dog, for instance.
You just cannot know. And it's not your science which will help you since your science is based on how HUMANS see and interpret things. It's biased since it's made on human rules. You see? I mean, the way dogs interpret the world might be entirely different.

I don't understand this. What does that mean? We have compassion so we don't apply this because you can't interpret animals behaviour of compassion?

Lote, Lote, Lote. Nobody said that Fifth or I had no compassion for dogs. we have compassion. What we say is that since we cannot know how animals think (?), we have no right to interact with them in our own way, according to or own rules, WITHOUT knowing if they would really agree with it. Maybe my dog, when he was younger, wanted to get out of my house and see the world.

No pet owner ever thinks of their pet as a Slave. Pet's are not in bondage like a human slave is. Animals seek contact so do humans. And from this contacts relationship develop. All animals interact with each other. We do not live in an isloated sphere from the rest of the animal world. We interact and have been interacting from the dawn of life. To deny that is self-imposed repression. And I think that is not healthy.

Of course I agree, I don't think of my doggy as being a slave, of course. I also agree that we don't live in an isolated sphere from the rest of the animal world. BUT, the only thing that bugs me is that I took my dog with me and imposed my rules to him. He was in my house, in my garden, and he had no right to go out alone. Of course it was to protect him from being run over by cars, but in the meantime I cannot help thinking that I didn't ask for his consent about these rules. This is what Fifth made me realize.
I don't see why it would be unhealthy to think this way. To me, what Fifth says is fair because she thinks of the animal before thinking of herself, it is generous. For my part, I just cannot do that.

Love is anything but selfish.

I agree very much, love is the experience of sharing and giving oneself and being given. I agree, I agree. But in the meantime I am lost because the love I have for my dog made me lock him in my house and garden. I'm sure he is happy, even if I cannot be sure (I practice doublethink about that ) but even if he is very happy, I cannot deny that I took away some parts of his liberty.
I mean, if someone took you away from your house and put you in theirs, and if you had no right to go out without them, and if whenever you went out you were tied to a leash... well, even if they treated you a wonderful way, covered you with kisses and presents, they would still take away some of your liberty.

No way! Science is the ONLY TRUTH we can agree on because it is based on VERFIABLE evidence.

Science has banished human superstitions to the pages of myths where they belong. It has achieved spectacular results in all branches of human knowledge. It has take us to the moon and back!

Do not be so naieve to give it up

Jesus, Lote, there is nothing I can do for you at this point. Science is not the only truth. No one knows what the only truth is. Science is a truth among others. It is a 'truth' which is based on things that can be proven with a certain amount of tools. We judge things as being true if we can prove them true with science, but no one knows if the rules of science are right, because the rules of science are just one interpretation of the world. It really surprises me that you cannot understand what I mean.
Why could everything be proven by science? What if the scientific methods and tools were just NOT ADAPTED to prove some things? What if? What if, Lote?
It is funny that you say that science has banished human superstitions and that those superstitions are thus wrong. What if science was wrong?

If seeing "Beyond" is not based on Evidence then it does not amount to much.

Ehehehe. Trying to see beyond, even if you never succeed to really see beyond, will always be more intelligent to me than relying on science in a blind way.

But animals seek contact. Human seek contact. What so unfairness in this?

[/QUOTE]

There is nothing unfair in this. There is nothing unfair as long as both partners can decide when they want to stop this contact. When you have a pet, you are the only one who decides what you want to do with it.

When animals interfere with humans? Is that an Arrogance on Animals to intefere with humans?

Sweetie. All animals interact with each other. There is no getting away from it.

If you want seal yourself away from this interactions then go ahead...

For survival of both animals and humans human "arrogance" as you say it is very much is justified or else it would be the death of both. And that would be quite illogical thing to let happen arrogance or no arrogance

It is arrogant for humans to think that they have the right to control animals.
I never said I had a problem with interacting with animals or humans. But, for instance, if I took you to my home and forced you to listen to my ranting all day loooooong and if you could not escape, how would you feel?

I want to keep interacting with my dog because I love him. The thing I hate is that I have been born as a human, I have been born in this particular species who think they can do whatever they want to do with animals. Thus, I have not really wondered about that before, I've had my dog and I was happy with him. I am still happy with him, but I realize that my behavior towards him has not been as great as I had always thought it was. I know he will forgive me, but still, that bugs me.

[Lote-Tree]

What you say sounds like our level of awareness is higher than theirs.

Because we have a demonstrable higher Congnitive Complexity in our brains than animals. We can conceive of things that do not exist.

Then, I would like you to realize that my dog and I, for instance, just have different ways of seeing the world, with different abilities and different ways of interacting with it (I personally don't sniff people when I meet them ).

We have all these capabilites and more because of our Higher Cognitive Complexity. We can see the world as black and white like the way a dog does. We are influenced by smells and sounds just like a dog does.

My point is to say that you cannot really compare their level of awareness to ours because you cannot put yourself at the place of a dog, for instance.
You just cannot know.

Sweetie. We can demonstrably show that humans have higher cognitive complexity than dogs and dogs have higher cognitive complexity than a insect etc. Plants have no cognitive complexity because they have no neorones.

And it's not your science which will help you since your science is based on how HUMANS see and interpret things.

We have achieved spectacular results with our science.

It's biased since it's made on human rules. You see? I mean, the way dogs interpret the world might be entirely different.

Sweetie we can demonstrate to you how a dog interprets the world around it. We know that dogs see the world in Black and White. Insects see the world in UV light etc.

We have compassion.

See thats what I don't understand. You say you want to apply human morality to humans. That means you can't appy your human compassion to animals. That what it means isn't it? So we should not interefre with animals we should let them do whatever they please even if it involves death of both humans and animals.

What we say is that since we cannot know how animals think (?),

We can study how animals think. And we have studied that even octopuses can navigate complex mazes.

we have no right to interact with them in our own way, according to or own rules, WITHOUT knowing if they would really agree with it.

That is the thing I don't understand. If animals did not like human contact we would not able to keep them as pets. But animals do and interact with humans. They become attached to us.

As for getting "agreement" from animals is barking up the wrong tree. It's like asking babies for agreement to be born or not.

You say we should not apply human morality to animals and yet you quite easily apply human thinking of "consent" and "agreement" to animals.

Maybe my dog, when he was younger, wanted to get out of my house and see the world.

So would toddlers? Little children who know nothing about the world.

BUT, the only thing that bugs me is that I took my dog with me and imposed my rules to him.

You had to because without it the relationship would have affected each
other badly. You being wiser took the decision to toilet train him.

To me, what Fifth says is fair because she thinks of the animal before thinking of herself, it is generous. For my part, I just cannot do that.

But you don't realise that it was the very pet keeping experience that human compassion extended to whole of the animal world. It has given a shared experience that says we are not alone. We share this world with millions of other creatures who seek interactions with each other.

Supreme Being's thinking in my opinion is very narrow - this thinking does not see the Wider Picture how we have evolved - evolved interacting with each other.

If we are too extend her thinking then we should NEVER interact with animals because that would be INTERFERING even if it kills both animals and humans.

But in the meantime I am lost because the love I have for my dog made me lock him in my house and garden.

You do these things because your dog is not a slave but for reason's of safety just like a human will ensure a baby is safe in it's cot.

Jesus, Lote, there is nothing I can do for you at this point. Science is not the only truth.

Sweetie. I think you don't just get it. Science is the ONLY TRUTH we can agree on because it is based on evidence. You and I can say 2+2=4 so can rest of the humanity. But if you say purple is pink to you and red is blue. we can never agree...

It is arrogant for humans to think that they have the right to control animals.

Why is it arrogant? If we did not control it it may lead to death of both the animals and humans. In our evolutionary past this could have been the case like the dinosaurs. But we have evolved to such an extend that we can see this now.

[Whifflingpin]

S A: "It is arrogant for humans to think that they have the right to control animals. "
L-T: "Why is it arrogant? If we did not control it it may lead to death of both the animals and humans. In our evolutionary past this could have been the case like the dinosaurs. But we have evolved to such an extend that we can see this now."

Humans do control vast areas of the earth and seas and are still, in the evolutionary present, causing the death of whole species of animals, and at this stage show no signs of caring about their own destruction. Humans have demonstrably failed and shown themselves unworthy and incapable of the kind of stewardship on which Lote-Tree bases his argument.

[Sweets America]

Because we have a demonstrable higher Congnitive Complexity in our brains than animals. We can conceive of things that do not exist.

Yes, I know tests have been made with animals to see what their abilities were. But what if we had interpreted the results the wrong way? What if a behavior, in an animal, did not mean the same thing as the same behavior in a human being?

We have all these capabilites and more because of our Higher Cognitive Complexity. We can see the world as black and white like the way a dog does. We are influenced by smells and sounds just like a dog does.

One part of me wants to answer:
You make me laugh real loud here when you compare the way we perceive smells to the way dogs do. Because dogs' perception of smell is really higher to ours.
Now the other part of me realizes that I cannot use that argument because it relies on how science has proven this about dogs' perception of smells. And since I have just said that science is not necessarily a truth, all I can do is stop laughing real loud and just shut up.
My problem is that some part of me agrees with science because I have always been into this world ruled by science, but some other part of me wonders about it all. I want to question the world, I don't want to follow things blindly.

Sweetie. We can demonstrably show that humans have higher cognitive complexity than dogs and dogs have higher cognitive complexity than a insect etc. Plants have no cognitive complexity because they have no neorones.

Yes, but maybe dogs, humans and insects could be classified in a different way if we classified them according to other abilities? Abilities that we might not know about because science cannot measure them?

Sweetie we can demonstrate to you how a dog interprets the world around it. We know that dogs see the world in Black and White. Insects see the world in UV light etc.

We? When I told you that you had multiple personalities...
I see what you mean, but some other part of my brains wonders. It's difficult for me to explain my point because I want to be open minded, I just want to be open to the fact that the human interpretations might not be accurate to judge everything on this planet.
Now maybe dogs see in black and white, but maybe they also see other things that we are not able to see.

See thats what I don't understand. You say you want to apply human morality to humans. That means you can't appy your human compassion to animals. That what it means isn't it? So we should not interefre with animals we should let them do whatever they please even if it involves death of both humans and animals.

Well, I think nobody has the right to interfere in the reproduction of animals for instance, because animals do not interfere in ours. Who do human beings think they are? They say 'let's regulate animal breeding so that the planet won't be overpopulated and it will prevent the death of everyone', but in the meantime they create wars with other human beings and create atomic bombs. there is something wrong with human beings. If I were an animal, I would be greatly scared of having humans take care of my survival, seeing how they take care of theirs!

We can study how animals think. And we have studied that even octopuses can navigate complex mazes.

We can study how animals think according to our own conception of thinking. Now maybe animals have other ways of thinking, ways that we will never know of because we are not like them.

That is the thing I don't understand. If animals did not like human contact we would not able to keep them as pets. But animals do and interact with humans. They become attached to us.

When I see my dog, I am sure he loves human contact, and I am sure he is attached to me. But he is still locked up.

As for getting "agreement" from animals is barking up the wrong tree. It's like asking babies for agreement to be born or not.

You say we should not apply human morality to animals and yet you quite easily apply human thinking of "consent" and "agreement" to animals.

Well, having a baby is selfish in a way, just like Fifth said. But the thing is that the baby, when he grows up, is free to live his own life, which is not the case for dogs.
No, I do not apply 'consent' to animals. Actually, maybe dogs love being locked up, who knows? The thing is that since I cannot know for sure that it is not a problem for my dog to be with me, it will still bug me.

You had to because without it the relationship would have affected each
other badly. You being wiser took the decision to toilet train him.

Well, in a way, if not applying my rules to my dog would have affected our relationship badly, maybe I should not have had any relationship with him in the first place? It sounds horrible to me not to be with him, but I cannot help wondering. I guess that I am trying, with my dog, to balance things. I make him follow my rules for some things and he makes me follow his rules for some others.

Supreme Being's thinking in my opinion is very narrow - this thinking does not see the Wider Picture how we have evolved - evolved interacting with each other.

Absolutely not. Her way of thinking is on the contrary very wide, a lot wider than yours. I was so outraged at first when I read her lines, I was so angry, but it was because I saw that she was somehow right and it really disturbed me. I am glad that I realized all of this even if it makes me sad and anxious.

If we are too extend her thinking then we should NEVER interact with animals because that would be INTERFERING even if it kills both animals and humans.

We have the right to interfere with animals as long as we do not force them into anything.
And, I would prefer dying than controlling animals. I have no right to do that. I don't want to be like these humans who want to control this planet. I don't want to. I hate it. Now, I see that I am controlling my dog in some ways, which distresses me very much. I hate to be this way and I cannot be otherwise.

Sweetie. I think you don't just get it. Science is the ONLY TRUTH we can agree on because it is based on evidence. You and I can say 2+2=4 so can rest of the humanity. But if you say purple is pink to you and red is blue. we can never agree...

I actually think that purple might be pink to me and blue to you. I have no problem with that. I don't want to enclose myself into any theory. Science is just a theory among others. Science is nothing supreme. You don't know what the truth is. I don't know either. I don't think I will ever know. The most important, to me, is not to know the truth, it is to stay open minded.

Why is it arrogant? If we did not control it it may lead to death of both the animals and humans.

As I said, I prefer dying then. I cannot stand to control other beings. And since I'm controlling my dog, I guess I should kill myself right now.

[Sweets America]

S A: "It is arrogant for humans to think that they have the right to control animals. "
L-T: "Why is it arrogant? If we did not control it it may lead to death of both the animals and humans. In our evolutionary past this could have been the case like the dinosaurs. But we have evolved to such an extend that we can see this now."

Humans do control vast areas of the earth and seas and are still, in the evolutionary present, causing the death of whole species of animals, and at this stage show no signs of caring about their own destruction. Humans have demonstrably failed and shown themselves unworthy and incapable of the kind of stewardship on which Lote-Tree bases his argument.

Thank YOU.

[Bakiryu]

I guess it's too late to add anything to this thread, but I do not think owning pets it's cruel. As long as you're not abusing them or eating them, pets are in a way like children. If we can't keep pets, we shouldn't have babies either, it's nearly similar!

[Sweets America]

I guess it's too late to add anything to this thread, but I do not think owning pets it's cruel. As long as you're not abusing them or eating them, pets are in a way like children. If we can't keep pets, we shouldn't have babies either, it's nearly similar!

It's not absolutely similar since babies, when they grow up, can live their own lives.

All I have been trying to do through this thread is to open myself and recognize some of my faults.